Romney: Assad must go

posted at 8:13 pm on July 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s hinting, without explicitly saying, that the U.S. should be a prime mover in making this happen, which would raise many questions if we take this response as being on the level. Is it? Or is it just something he’s obliged to say because of the dynamics of the campaign? He needs to criticize O’s foreign policy somehow and the natural place to do it if you’re a Republican of the non-Ron-Paul variety, as Romney is, is from the right. Obviously he’s not imagining boots on the ground here; he’s floating a gassy statement of hawkishness suggesting that The One’s not doing enough to solve an increasingly atrocious problem. It’s the safe, moral answer, even in a war-weary America, so long as he’s not forced to give specifics. Yet.

KUDLOW: And last one, Governor, appreciate your time very much. You’re going to Europe and you’re going to Israel. Let me ask you your view of President Obama. Has he been tough enough in ousting Assad? After all, that would be a signal to Iran and to Hezbollah. Prime Minister Netanyahu talked about that yesterday. Is the United States being tough enough on Assad?

Gov. ROMNEY: Well, I think from the very beginning we misread the setting in Syria. The secretary of state said that Assad was a reformer. That’s a phrase which will obviously go down in history as being poorly timed and entirely inaccurate. This is a person who is killing his own people and was at the time. America should’ve come out very aggressively from the very beginning and said Assad must go. At this stage, America is taking action, covert and overt, to try and encourage a change of leadership there. But the Middle East itself, with all of the violence which has occurred and which is occurring now in Syria, is a place of tumult and disarray and the world looks for American leadership and American strength. And it is time for us to have confidence that our cause is just, to have the kind of clarity of vision in our purpose and to have the kind of resolve behind our application of soft and hard power. And if those things are put in place, I think the world is a safer place and our freedom will be more secure.

KUDLOW: But is there any doubt in your mind that Assad has to go?

Gov. ROMNEY: Oh, there’s no question but that Assad has to go. I think even the Russians from news reports I’m reading have recognized that he must go. We don’t want to see a continuation of the same kind of brutality, which has characterized the last several months. But what follows Assad, we just don’t know. But a person of this nature that’s overseen the killing of his own people is obviously someone who’s unfit to lead.

Two things. One: Obama’s been saying that Assad must go for nearly a year now. He didn’t say it “from the very beginning” of the Syrian uprising, granted, but what would he have gained by doing that if he wasn’t prepared to act relatively quickly to make it happen if Assad resisted? He might have thought early on that the rebellion would peter out quickly or that Assad would crush it efficiently, and then he’d be stuck looking like a chump and with all hopes of eventual rapprochement with the regime down the toilet. In fact, one of the knocks on Obama during the early stages of the Libyan uprising was that he kept saying that Qaddafi must go without demonstrating any real desire to help make it happen. If the president of the United States is going to call for some foreign leader to be deposed, I’d prefer that it not be an idle threat.

Two: How would it show “clarity of vision in our purpose” to help topple Assad when “we just don’t know” what would follow him? Mitt’s thinking here, I take it, is that anything that deprives Iran of a key client is all to the good. Is that true, though? Trading an Alawite regime for one dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t guarantee that Iran will be evicted from Syria. They get along fine with the fundie Sunnis in Hamas in the interest of harassing Israel, after all. Beyond that, how sure are we that helping the Brotherhood expand its dominion to another strategically crucial Sunni country won’t more than offset the security gains that flow from weakening Iran by toppling their pal Assad? Iran’s a more immediate threat, but I tend to lapse into indifference when it comes to hard choices between Sunni fanatics and Shiite fanatics. Also, what if we help topple Assad and he’s replaced by … nothing? Imagine the entire country as no man’s land, split at the seams among different tribes. Would that situation be good for America’s or Israel’s security, given what we know about, say, Afghanistan circa 1998? Do you think Al Qaeda would be happy about it?

As I say, Mitt’s statement here is really a moral one, not a policy one. Assad’s a monstrous degenerate; no mainstream U.S. pol will shrug and say we have no business trying to stop the killing given the gruesome reports that voters see every night. He said what he had to say. I just wonder if he’s prepared to elaborate when asked to do so, especially since it sounds like O’s already gearing up to aid the Syrian rebels more aggressively. Speaking of which, here he is at the VFW today. Skip ahead to 12:10 to hear him warn Assad about not making the “tragic mistake” of using chemical weapons — which the regime is now openly threatening to do if any outside powers interfere.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Sometimes Romney just stuns me with his stupidity. Is it his neocon advisors feeding him terrible foreign policy advice or what? His understanding seems paper thin. If Assad goes, who does it and who takes his place? Right now, the people poised to take his place are fundamentalist jihadis who want more strict Islamic laws.

America should’ve come out very aggressively from the very beginning and said Assad must go. At this stage, America is taking action, covert and overt, to try and encourage a change of leadership there.

Mubarak of Egypt ring a bell here?

Democracy brought Hamas to power and looks to bring the Muslim Brotherhood, or their more radical cousins to power in Egypt.

But what follows Assad, we just don’t know.

Well that’s very encouraging. I guess we just have to depend on the wisdom and good sense of the Sunni Muslims of Syria?

Gov Romney, you do not have access to any intelligence report that Hussein has, so shut your pie hole . Stop regurgitating McCain’s insane fantasies !! That senile fool works for Obama campaign , just as in 2008

Two: How would it show “clarity of vision in our purpose” to help topple Assad when “we just don’t know” what would follow him? Mitt’s thinking here, I take it, is that anything that deprives Iran of a key client is all to the good. Is that true, though? Trading an Alawite regime for one dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t guarantee that Iran will be evicted from Syria.

It becomes more obvious every day that the status quo is not sustainable..and of course there is some question as to what comes next..but that is the case whether we get involved or not. The truth is that Syria has chemical and biological weapons and I do not think that people are anymore comfortable with those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists than they are with Pakistani nukes being launched by some rogue element in Pakistan.

But what follows Assad, we just don’t know.

Well that’s very encouraging. I guess we just have to depend on the wisdom and good sense of the Sunni Muslims of Syria?

sharrukin on July 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM

It is not meant to be encouraging or discouraging, it is just a fact….but if we do not try to support the anti Assad elements that we do know and can have some faith in…then we will have no input into what happens next.

That said, Romney shouldn’t go beyond vague generalities here. Don’t let Obama and the media pretend that this is an election about anything other than the economy and the fascist dictatorial policies from this administration keeping it in the crapper.

It is not meant to be encouraging or discouraging, it is just a fact….but if we do not try to support the anti Assad elements that we do know and can have some faith in…then we will have no input into what happens next.

Terrye on July 23, 2012 at 8:30 PM

What input do we have with Hamas despite backing those elections in Gaza?

What input do we have with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite Obama pounding the drums day and night for Mubarak’s ouster?

What input did we have in Libya when we backed them and those SA-7′s we gave them and others from Libya’s arsenal just vanished into terrorist hands?

It doesn’t work that way. Gratitude with the Muslims lasts only as long as you are currently supplying the goodies.

Sometimes Romney just stuns me with his stupidity. Is it his neocon advisors feeding him terrible foreign policy advice or what? His understanding seems paper thin. If Assad goes, who does it and who takes his place? Right now, the people poised to take his place are fundamentalist jihadis who want more strict Islamic laws.

AngusMc on July 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Speaking of stupid…not all those people are radical jihadis…a lot of them are ordinary people who have just had enough of the Assads and their dictatorship..and at this point it is looking as if there is no if Assad goes..there is when Assad goes.

You can slam neocons all you want..but you do not have to be a neocon to see what is happening in Syria. Those people are determined to get rid of Assad. Now what comes after? Well after a dictatorship falls there is generally a vacuum of power. After all, it is not as if they allow for political opposition to exist. All these people rooting for the dictator because they think that brings stability needs to look at the Middle East today…a generation of strongmen are passing and they are leaving chaos in their wake, not stability.

What I would like to know is, after all the times for 60 years Syria has been killing Israelis, the US never intervened. Why, all of a sudden, should we take action when the Syrian government is killing Syrians?

It doesn’t work that way. Gratitude with the Muslims lasts only as long as you are currently supplying the goodies.

sharrukin on July 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I am not talking about gratitude…I am talking about influence.

I do not know what is going to happen in Syria, but I do know that Assad is on his way out..we can either stand back and root for the dictator who is a friend of Iran or we can try to support the people there who are actually reformers.

One thing is for sure, it will be a long time before the dust settles in the region. We do not know really know what comes after…but you mentioned Libya..well you know what? I remember when that plane went down over Scotland and Gaddafi got what he had coming..a couple of decades late.

Yes, in Syria..maybe you think that every single human being living in Syria is not a human being..but I doubt if that is the case. Besides, you are backing the libertarian so what do you care anyway?

I am not saying we should go to war over there..but there could be some no fly zones and some refugee centers set up and medical care offered to the wounded as well support for reformers who are not jihadis..

Leave Assad alone, no more neocons! What do we do, knock down Assad only to prop up a worse Muslim enemy, and inflame the big guys of Russia and China again? Don’t mess with Russia & China unless we really must. Syria is no must; no mas neocons. Don’t tempt disaster.

What I would like to know is, after all the times for 60 years Syria has been killing Israelis, the US never intervened. Why, all of a sudden, should we take action when the Syrian government is killing Syrians?

Liam on July 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Well, there is the fear that Hezbellah will get hold of those chemical weapons and we know what they will do with them. Israel is worried about that themselves.

Indeed. But from a political standpoint, at least domestically, he’s worried about Romney’s trip to Israel. Romney should glean important information because of his ties to Netanyahu – nothing classified, but important nonetheless.

The contrast between the two candidates couldn’t be more clear. BO sides with muslim countries, does not support freedom movements, etc., etc. Romney is committed to Israel, and this will help him domestically.

Yeah, BO is worried about Israel, and he should be after treating them so shabbily. However, as usual, his concern has more to do with getting reelected, and Mitt is giving him a fit.

It will be interesting to see how much information camp Romney dispenses to the press. My guess is not too much – just to aggravate BO. It would drive them crazy(ier).

Heh…. then he goes on to Poland. And I’ll bet Mitt makes a statement about “not being flexible after his election.”

What’s he supposed to say? “Obama’s handling it perfectly – vote for me”? I doubt he has any interest in going in there. It’s just an easy way to make Obama look weak without any political downside. It’s not too much different than Obama’s sanctimonious garbage about Gitmo in 2008 (actually, it’s a lot more innocuous due to it’s vagueness). Sure, who doesn’t want Asad gone? Everyone else can argue about what kind of government will replace it, and it’s not to assume that we would intervene. It won’t get much better or worse – take the political points where you can score them. Obama would. You guys want Obama gone or not?

Why should I care if my country goes to war on behalf of terrorists and fascist Islamists in a nation we have absolutely no interests or allies in and which has been a Russian proxy all of my life? Are you freaking serious?

Uh, he made them. Just like our CIA has been telling us Syria has been doing for the last 30 years.

JohnGalt23 on July 23, 2012 at 8:32 PM

No you don’t understand, those are the missing WMDs from Iraq. Once we land in Syria and spend another trillion there and don’t find them we’ll be told that there are signs they’ve been moved to [Insert ME Country Name].

There’s no way we gain even a single vote by being neocon on Syria.
It turns out that McCain actually would have been dangerous as commander in chief. A huge number of votes were lost because of that concern. And the base is not going to be excited about this issue; indeed, Syria is akin to Libya, and perhaps greater than half the Republicans are going to oppose any neocon adventurism on Syria.

Worse, O can use this opening to paint Romney as dangerous on foreign policy. Yes, peace through strength. But the people have had enough of “peace through war.” No mas.

That’s just another thing to hate about fascist neocons is that they are gung-ho to start stupid, pointless proxy wars but always send other people to do the actual fighting and pay for it through generational theft from children and the unborn.

Considering that Romney has John Bolton’s expertise at his disposal, I’m not greatly concerned by this conversation.

Foreign policy was bound to be broached at some point soon in this campaign. Obama’s record in this area has been as abysmal as has his record on domestic policy.

Romney is going to be visiting Israel on his imminent trip abroad. Netanyahu has made it public knowledge that his primary topic of conversation with Romney will be Iran. Obviously, Netanyahu is anxious to speak with the man he believes will be in a position to stand by Israel and honor this nations commitments to our ally.

Neither Obama, nor Hillary Clinton, has bothered to visit Israel in the last four years. Obama has ‘promised’ to visit Israel…. if he’s reelected for another four years. That’s a statement made in desperation.

Syria’s primary importance to the United States is in its strategic position and its links to Iran, Russia, and China. The situation in Syria would not have developed to this point if those nations weren’t trying to exploit what they perceive as a weakness in this nation’s foreign policy.

The ongoing situation in Syria will have to be addressed. I think Romney is looking ahead and beginning the conversation now, opening the door to a deeper discussion our allies as he travels abroad.

Why should I care if my country goes to war on behalf of terrorists and fascist Islamists in a nation we have absolutely no interests or allies in and which has been a Russian proxy all of my life? Are you freaking serious?

FloatingRock on July 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Jeez. Mostly agreeing with you is making me queezy.

Worse, O can use this opening to paint Romney as dangerous on foreign policy. Yes, peace through strength. But the people have had enough of “peace through war.” No mas.

anotherJoe on July 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM

They might be underestimating the shift that’s happened closer to the ground. I was pretty purely neocon under Bush. But the same swell that raised up the Tea Party has shifted some attitudes about all this — why do the powers that be think Ron Paul got more than 15 minutes this time around? His domestic policy? The broad opinion never reached isolationism, but it’s shifted. That’s anecdotal — it’s shifted “around here” — but there’s nothing special about this particular red-state.

This is probably boiling down to being O’s October Surprise, and we don’t want Mitt to play into that, to encourage it. With the right October Surprise, it’s over for us, lights out, O wins with coattails in the senate and house. 4 more…
No more neocons! Peace through strength, not war through idiocy.

Considering that Romney has John Bolton’s expertise at his disposal, I’m not greatly concerned by this conversation.

Foreign policy was bound to be broached at some point soon in this campaign. Obama’s record in this area has been as abysmal as has his record on domestic policy.

thatsafactjack on July 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Obama’s foreign policy is the exact same foreign policy as Bush, as Clinton, as Bush Sr., as Reagan, etc., going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt. You are correct that it is an abysmal record, however.

I am not saying we should go to war over there..but there could be some no fly zones and some refugee centers set up and medical care offered to the wounded as well support for reformers who are not jihadis..

Terrye on July 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Why do wish to claim my property, and use the government to seize my money to do this? Do you think that’s a conservative position? Do you scoff when someone refers to the United States as an empire or describes it as imperial?

But that’s an invitation to full out war.
Look at Libya. The no fly zones enabled all out bombing of all targets. If we don’t have both Russia and China fully on board on this, don’t screw around with it. If we do, there is going to come a time where we really MUST get involved in something militarily, and Russia and China are going to say that after Libya and Syria they simply have had enough, and are going to oppose us, with forces, and bombs. Let Syria crumble by itself.

I’m assuming, given your many immature and poorly conceived comments on these threads, that you are about 12-13 years of age. Come back and see us when you’ve matured enough to have a lucid conversation.

That’s the estimate as I see it, given what I have available by experience. I never forget our own media are on the side of one person for now, but will always remain on the side of his over-lasting group.

More frightening is that the MSM would give Obama a pass if he took action without the UN and Congress, like in the instance of Libya.

Want an October Surprise? Try this, just for fun…

Assad (who is of the Ba’ath Party like was Saddam of Irag)is under extreme popular pressure, and uses mustard gas on a small rebellious village to show his resolve. Obama takes retaliatory action, sending in air strikes. Iran, an ally of Assad, decides to lend support. In addition to naval and air action against our fleet in the Persian Gulf, Teheran launches a major ground offensive across northern Iraq to establish a land bridge with Syria; Iran’s only other way to supply Assad is through the Suez Canal and that will be fruitless.

In addition to air assets if the operation is successful, Iran is now able to send ground forces to aid its ally. At the same time, in an effort to split Arab sentiments across the region, Syrian and Iranian units shell and bomb Israel to get them involved.

But that’s an invitation to full out war.
Look at Libya. The no fly zones enabled all out bombing of all targets. If we don’t have both Russia and China fully on board on this, don’t screw around with it. If we do, there is going to come a time where we really MUST get involved in something militarily, and Russia and China are going to say that after Libya and Syria they simply have had enough, and are going to oppose us, with forces, and bombs. Let Syria crumble by itself.

You’re the one that expressed your unconcern about Romney’s foolishness that could lead to war based on an appeal to higher authority, and if you knew anything about John Bolton you would realize that it’s very unlikely he agrees with Romney on this matter.

Then you asked a leading, loaded question implying that I am consumed by fear, so I asked a leading, loaded question of a similar nature right back at you.

I’m assuming, given your many immature and poorly conceived comments on these threads, that you are about 12-13 years of age. Come back and see us when you’ve matured enough to have a lucid conversation.

You’re the one that expressed your unconcern about Romney’s foolishness that could lead to war based on an appeal to higher authority, and if you knew anything about John Bolton you would realize that it’s very unlikely he agrees with Romney on this matter.

Then you asked a leading, loaded question implying that I am consumed by fear, so I asked a leading, loaded question of a similar nature right back at you.

FloatingRock on July 23, 2012 at 9:35 PM

They’re interventionists. They may differ on details here and there, but they are aligned. I have no idea why you respect Bolton.

They’re interventionists. They may differ on details here and there, but they are aligned. I have no idea why you respect Bolton.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM

The situation in Syria is a bad one. The Russians don’t want Assad to topple because they don’t want their complicity in moving Saddam Hussein’s WMD into Syria to come to light. The Syrian government has probably the largest stockpile of Chemical WMD in the face of the Earth. If the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda get their hands on those weapons hings are going to get really ugly.

Sometimes Romney just stuns me with his stupidity. Is it his neocon advisors feeding him terrible foreign policy advice or what? His understanding seems paper thin. If Assad goes, who does it and who takes his place? Right now, the people poised to take his place are fundamentalist jihadis who want more strict Islamic laws.

AngusMc on July 23, 2012 at 8:19 PM

What the phuck up Mitt, your choices are Bashar Assad… Or Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Is it really that damned hard to figure out what to do?

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Obviously yes, it’s really that damned hard for Mitt to figure out because he’s an idiot who doesn’t know crap about foreign policy and speaks from emotion and ignorance.

FloatingRock on July 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM
It also shows once again he is on the exact same page of Obama.

Seems he wants the Muslim Brotherhood in power and has no clue that they are the father of AlQueda.

This paints Romney as a moron or an enemy of Israel and America ( after all that is the Muslim Brotherhoods ultimate target).

Under Assad Christians Muslims were living together under a reasonably stable government. Assad is the devil we know and probably a lot better than the Muslim Brotherhood devil we don’t. Do we want him to fall with his chemical & biological weapons going to the MB?

Under Assad Christians Muslims were living together under a reasonably stable government. Assad is the devil we know and probably a lot better than the Muslim Brotherhood devil we don’t. Do we want him to fall with his chemical & biological weapons going to the MB?

Chessplayer on July 23, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Exactly.

But according to John McCain the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t even exist.

Under Assad Christians Muslims were living together under a reasonably stable government. Assad is the devil we know and probably a lot better than the Muslim Brotherhood devil we don’t. Do we want him to fall with his chemical & biological weapons going to the MB?

Chessplayer on July 23, 2012 at 9:49 PM

The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t the Devil we don’t know, as Steveangell they are in fact the father, i.e. senior partner to Al Qaeda.

The situation in Syria is a bad one. The Russians don’t want Assad to topple because they don’t want their complicity in moving Saddam Hussein’s WMD into Syria to come to light. The Syrian government has probably the largest stockpile of Chemical WMD in the face of the Earth. If the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda get their hands on those weapons hings are going to get really ugly.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Not only that, Syria is the springboard to all of North and Eastern Africa as well as the Arabian Peninsula. Israel is the only country standing in the way.

Also, Israel has just discovered two huge undersea deposits of natural gas in the Med, and they belong to Israel by international treaties. I forget the volume, but it’s about 700 million cubic feet. Maybe more.

In a world starving for cheap energy that burns clean, this is a vast potential wealth for Israel.

There are only three countries left before the caliphate can unite. Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Once Assad is gone the calls for the Kings Abdullah of Jordan, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to leave will be within the month. Leave now so there will be no bloodshed. You seen what happened to Assad. No one would like to see that happen to you. Call for free elections now before the same people who toppled, Ben Ali, Gaddafi, Mubarak and now Assad come after you.

The situation in Syria is a bad one. The Russians don’t want Assad to topple because they don’t want their complicity in moving Saddam Hussein’s WMD into Syria to come to light. The Syrian government has probably the largest stockpile of Chemical WMD in the face of the Earth. If the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda get their hands on those weapons hings are going to get really ugly.